Hi, On 11-06-15 13:10, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 11-06-15 03:43, Aaron Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:54:45PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 06/09/2015 11:10 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:32:25AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>>>> On some systems acpi-video backlight is broken in the sense that it >>>>>> cannot >>>>>> control the brightness of the backlight, but it must still be called on >>>>>> resume to power-up the backlight after resume. >>>>> >>>>> All the video module does on resume is a backlight set operation, it >>>>> can't control backlight but can turn on the screen on resume? Hmm... >>>>> >>>>> I'll ask Sylvain to attach acpidump, let's see if there is anything >>>>> special there. >>>> >>>> Ok, lets see what comes out of that. Note in the mean time Sylvain has >>>> attached his acpidump. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> According to the discussion in the bugzilla place, it doesn't seem we >>> have any other way to handle this at the moment. >>> >>> Acked-by: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu at intel.com> >> >> Thanks. So that only leaves Jani's remark: >> >> > Nitpick, I'd prefer positively named variables, like enable_foo to avoid >> > the double negative !disable_foo. enable_foo and !enable_foo read much >> > better. But up to Aaron and friends. >> >> I personally believe that having the option named disable_backlight_sysfs_if >> is better here since I believe that things which are always enabled except >> on a few broken model laptops the option name should be disable_foo so >> that people can clearly see in /proc/cmdline / dmesg that the user is passing >> an option to disable something which is normally enabled. > > Fair enough. > >> >> As for the (!disabled) argument, the code in question here actually is: >> >> if (disabled) >> return 0; >> >> :) >> >> Still if people want me to change the option to a default-on >> enable_backlight_sysfs_if option I can do a v3... > > I'm not insisting.
Great, thanks :) So I'm going to assume this v2 patch is ready for merging then, if anyone wants me to make any changes please let me know. Regards, Hans
